[4910-13] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . 21-98, 45-29 ... · PAH’s requirements. A PAH’s...

This document is scheduled to be published in theFederal Register on 10/01/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24950, and on FDsys.gov

[4910-13]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21 and 45

[Docket No.: FAA-2013-0933; Amdt. Nos. 21-98, 45-29]

RIN 2120–AK20

Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending certification procedures and marking requirements

for aeronautical products and articles. The amendment requires production approval

holders to identify an accountable manager who is responsible for, and has authority

over, their production operations and serves as the primary contact with the FAA; allows

production approval holders to issue authorized release documents for aircraft engines,

propellers, and articles; permits production certificate holders to manufacture and install

interface components; requires production approval holders to ensure that each supplier-

provided product, article, or service conforms to the production approval holder’s

requirements and establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services

that have been released from or provided by the supplier and subsequently found not to

conform to the production approval holder’s requirements; removes the requirement that

fixed-pitch wooden propellers be marked using an approved fireproof method; and

changes the title of part 21 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This

http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24950

http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24950.pdf

2

amendment updates FAA regulations to reflect the current global aeronautical

manufacturing environment, thereby promoting aviation safety.

DATES: Effective [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and

other information related to this final rule, see How To Obtain Additional Information in

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning

this action, contact Priscilla Steward or Robert Cook, Aircraft Certification Service,

Production Certification Section, AIR-112, Federal Aviation Administration,

800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-1656; e-

mail: [email protected] or telephone: (202) 267-1590; e-mail:

[email protected].

For legal questions concerning this action, contact Benjamin Jacobs, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7240; e-mail:

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for this Rulemaking

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for developing

transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and

convenient transportation under § 101 of Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.). The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, we, us, or our) is an agency of DOT. The FAA

has general authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety, including minimum

mailto:[email protected]



3

standards for articles and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and

performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers under 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(g),

44104, and 44701.

The FAA is amending its regulations governing certification procedures for

products and articles, and its requirements for identification and registration marking.

These changes improve the quality standards applicable to manufacturers and help to

ensure that products and articles are produced as designed and safe to operate. For those

reasons, these amendments are a reasonable and necessary exercise of our rulemak ing

authority and obligations.

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This final rule changes certification and marking requirements for products and

articles. In particular, this final rule:

Requires applicants for a production approval and production approval

holders (PAHs) to identify an accountable manager;

Allows a production certificate (PC) holder to manufacture and install

interface components (IC) under certain conditions and limitations;

Clarifies that a PAH must ensure that each supplier-provided product, article,

or service conforms to the PAH’s requirements;

Requires a PAH to establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles,

or services released from or provided by a supplier and subsequently found

not to conform to the PAH’s requirements;

Allows a PAH that establishes an FAA-approved process in its quality system

4

to issue authorized release documents (using FAA Form 8130-3) for new and

used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles produced by that PAH; and

Excludes fixed-pitch wooden propellers from the requirement that a propeller,

propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an approved fireproof

method.

Regulations pertaining to certification requirements for products and articles are

in part 21 of Title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Marking requirements

are in 14 CFR part 45.

This final rule requires applicants for a production approval and production

approval holders (PAHs) to identify an accountable manager who is responsible for, and

has authority over, a PAH’s operations. This individual would also serve as a PAH’s

primary contact with the FAA. Additionally, this amendment requires PAHs to amend,

where applicable, the documents required by §§ 21.135, 21.305, and 21.605 to reflect the

appointment of an accountable manager.

This final rule allows a production certificate1 (PC) holder to manufacture and

install interface components (IC) under certain conditions and limitations. This final rule

defines an IC as an article that serves as a functional interface between an aircraft and an

aircraft engine, between an aircraft engine and a propeller, or between an aircraft and a

propeller. Under this rule, an IC is designated as such by the type certificate (TC) or the

supplemental type certificate (STC) holder who controls the approved design data for that

article.

1 Section 21.1(b)(6) defines production approval as a document issued by the FAA to a person that allows the

production of a product or article in accordance with its approved design and approved quality system, and can take

the form of a production certificate, a PMA, or a TSO authorization.

5

This final rule clarifies that a PAH must ensure that each supplier-provided

product, article, or service conforms to the PAH’s requirements. This final rule also

requires a PAH to establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services

released from or provided by a supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the

PAH’s requirements. A PAH’s reporting system may require suppliers to report

nonconformances to the PAH directly, or to other suppliers in the supply chain.

This final rule allows a PAH that establishes an FAA-approved process in its

quality system to issue authorized release documents (using FAA Form 8130-3) for new

and used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles produced by that PAH. This provision

allows PAHs privileges similar to those afforded European- and Canadian-approved

manufacturers.

This final rule amends part 45 to exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers from the

requirement that a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an

approved fireproof method. This exclusion allows manufacturers to mark their products

in a practical manner that takes account of the inherent nature of wooden propellers.

This final rule amends the title of part 21 to include articles. The title is now

“Certification Procedures for Products and Articles.”

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

The provisions of this final rule (1) are minimal cost, (2) impose no additional costs

because the provisions clarify only, or are current practice, or (3) are voluntary and

therefore inherently cost-beneficial. Our analysis described in the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) regulatory evaluation has not changed. The FAA received no

comments to the docket on the NPRM regulatory evaluation.

II. Background

6

Part 21 of 14 CFR contains the FAA’s regulations concerning certification

procedures for products, articles, and parts. Since the FAA codified part 21 in 1964, it has

been amended numerous times. Additionally, the origins of many part 21 regulations can

be traced to the Civil Air Regulations codified in 1937.

When part 21 was first codified, most manufacturers of aviation products and

articles had a small, local supplier base. Production certificate holders oversaw the

manufacture of replacement parts, and the international market for aviation products was

relatively small. As a result, for many years the U.S. had few bilateral agreements with

other countries for the export and import of aviation products, and these agreements were

limited in scope.

Today, aviation products are manufactured world-wide. The number of suppliers

has increased dramatically, and these suppliers manufacture an increasing percentage of a

given product or article. Furthermore, due to the global nature of manufacturing, forming

business partnerships and agreements across large geographic areas is now a common

strategy to lower costs, share risks, and expand markets. Manufacturers collaborate

globally to reduce duplicate requirements for shared suppliers. Accordingly, the

international market for aviation products and the production of replacement parts under

parts manufacturer approvals (PMAs) have increased dramatically.

In recognition of these and other related considerations, the FAA published an

NPRM, Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals, on February 27, 2014, 79 FR

11012. The NPRM proposed numerous rule changes to part 21, primarily to subparts A

(General) and G (Production Certificates). For greater detail on the FAA’s initial

proposal, including additional background information and a more complete statement of

the problem, refer to the NPRM.

7

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

In response to the FAA’s NPRM, we received comments from 19 commenters,

raising 32 issues. Commenters included aviation manufacturers and equipment

manufacturers, such as Boeing, Garmin, General Electric, HEICO, Textron, Timken, and

Williams International; industry groups and associations, such as Aerospace Industry

Association (AIA), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), and Modification and

Replacement Parts Association (MARPA); and numerous individuals. The comments

covered five main topics and a range of various responses to the rulemaking proposal,

which are discussed in more detail below.

A. Supplier Control

This final rule makes two amendments to § 21.137(c)(1) & (2). First, as proposed,

§ 21.137(c)(1), which previously required a PAH to develop procedures to ensure that a

supplier-provided product or article conforms to its approved design, now also requires

those procedures to account for supplier-provided services. Second, as proposed, the

standard for supplier control is revised in both § 21.137(c)(1) & (2) to require suppliers to

furnish products, articles, or services that conform to the PAH’s requirements. Prior to

this final rule, supplier-provided goods and services had to conform to FAA-approved

design data.

HEICO recommended amending the proposed § 21.137(c)(1) to include services

provided to a design approval holder. The commenter noted that many design approval

holders outsource portions of the overall design process and these ‘services’ must also be

properly controlled. The commenter’s recommendation is outside the scope of this

rulemaking, which focuses on production approvals and PAH activities, and not on

8

design approval certification activities. PAHs are not responsible, under § 21.137, for

design approval holder activities.

ASA and MARPA recommended that, in addition to requiring a PAH to require

suppliers to provide products, articles, or services to meet the PAH requirements, the

FAA should also continue to allow a PAH to accept products, articles, or services that

conform to the PAH’s approved design. The commenters’ rationale was that this final

rule creates two separate rules with respect to conformity of products and articles; one

standard for when a company is acting as a supplier, and another standard when it is

acting as a distributor. The commenters claimed that an entity functioning as a supplier

to a PAH would be required to ensure that the product or article conformed to the PAH’s

requirements. However, if that same entity, operating as a distributor, were to sell their

products in the aftermarket as replacement parts, for instance to a repair station or an air

carrier, they would still be required to ensure that the product or article conforms to its

approved design. Both commenters suggested that this situation could result in confusion

and unintended harm to suppliers, and recommended revising proposed § 21.137(c)(1) to

allow products, articles, or services to conform to either the PAH’s requirements or the

approved design.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. With respect to the commenters’

claim that this final rule creates two separate rules for suppliers and distributors in the

aftermarket, we presume that the commenters used the term “aftermarket distributor” to

mean that the distributor is acting as a supplier to an entity other than a PAH. Regardless,

this provision does not create two separate standards. All suppliers to any purchaser

continue to be bound by contract to the terms of any relevant purchase order. In the case

of suppliers to a PAH, the final rule removes the requirement to report deliveries that

9

conform to the purchase order but do not conform to the PAH’s final approved design.

Aftermarket distributors who are not suppliers, on the other hand, are outside of the scope

of part 21. The FAA does not regulate aftermarket distributers under these regulations.

The commenters also suggested that, under this final rule, a supplier providing the

same part with different specifications to both a PAH and an aftermarket customer, such

as a maintenance provider, could be at risk of inadvertently sending design-conforming

parts (intended for the aftermarket customer) to a PAH, instead of parts that met the

PAH’s unique specifications. The commenters suggested that the supplier in that situation

should not be punished for providing an article that conforms to its approved design.

The FAA disagrees with the comment that this change will punish any supplier

who provides nonconforming products, articles, or services. This provision is not

intended as a means to punish suppliers. The FAA does not directly regulate suppliers;

instead, this final rule requires that a PAH’s quality system include a supplier-reporting

system. Under this final rule, a PAH must establish procedures for supplier reporting of

supplier-provided products, articles, or services that deviate from the requirements of the

PAH’s purchase order. This gives a PAH flexibility to determine the appropriate level of

reporting because it is the PAH and only the PAH who knows what is needed, and in

what condition, for the production process. To clarify, this final rule does not require a

PAH to report to the FAA those supplier nonconformances that remain within the PAH’s

quality system.

Relatedly, ASA and MARPA stated that the proposed rule could indirectly require

a supplier to report nonconformance higher up the supply chain, even when the supplier

provided a product or article that conformed to its approved design. The commenters

10

again recommended that the final rule allow suppliers to provide products or articles that

conform to either the PAH’s requirements or the approved design.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. This final rule replaces the existing

requirement that a supplier-provided product, article, or service conform to the PAH’s

approved design with a requirement that it conform to the PAH’s requirements. The

purpose of this amendment is to tailor the regulation to its original intent. For example, a

PAH may issue a purchase order for sheet metal parts, and state on the purchase order

that the rivet holes are to be drilled to less than the finished dimensions of the approved

design. The PAH may request pilot drilling by the supplier because the PAH will itself

drill the holes to the finished size upon assembly. If the supplier provides the items with

the holes drilled to the finished dimension, the sheet metal parts would not conform to the

PAH’s requirements. The supplier would be supplying nonconforming material even

though it would conform to the approved design. Under this final rule, therefore, a

supplier may not deviate from the requirements of the PAH. It is the PAH, and only the

PAH, that knows what is needed, and in what condition, for the production process.

An individual commenter stated that the NPRM changes the definition of “quality

escape,” as the phrase is used in § 21.137(n), from nonconforming products or articles

which escaped a PAH’s quality system to products or articles which do not conform to

their approved design but are contained within the quality system. The commenter

recommended that we distinguish between nonconforming products or articles still within

the PAH’s quality system, and nonconforming products or articles that escape a PAH’s

quality control system.

Section 21.137(n), which is not revised by this rule, addresses quality escapes by

requiring a PAH to have procedures for, among other things, identifying and taking

11

corrective action whenever a PAH releases a nonconforming product or article from its

quality system. In our NPRM, we stated that this proposal would require a PAH to

establish a supplier reporting process for products, articles, or services that have been

released from a supplier and subsequently found not to conform (hereafter referred to as a

quality escape) to the PAH’s requirements. We believe the commenter’s confusion

derives from our use of the term “quality escape” to describe the transfer of

nonconforming items or services between tiers in the supply chain, instead of its

traditional meaning of nonconforming products or articles that leave a PAH’s quality

system. We acknowledge that our preamble discussion in the NPRM used the term in a

confusing manner. However, we determine that no change to the terms of § 21.137, as

originally proposed, are necessary. The reporting requirements of § 21.137(c) apply when

a supplier to a PAH determines that it has released or provided a product, article, or

service subsequently found not to conform to the PAH’s requirements, and do not include

the phrase “quality escape.”

Boeing recommended that the FAA require PAHs to communicate design change

notifications throughout the supply chain, and adopt the industry’s SAE2 AS9016

standard for standardization of design change notifications, because it believes this will

address the single most common reason for quality escapes from the supply chain.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation to regulate PAHs’ use of SAE

AS9016 because we believe this subject is adequately addressed by our current

regulation, § 21.137(a), design data control, which requires that only current, correct, and

approved data is used. In addition, we do not believe that we should mandate, by rule,

2 Formerly known as the Society of Automotive Engineers.

12

the use of an industry standard over which we have no control. This final rule requires a

PAH to ensure that any product, article, or service it receives conforms to its

requirements. If a PAH chooses, it may, as part of a purchase order, require its supply-

chain to adhere to the AS9016 standard.

Williams International stated that it is unnecessary to require a PAH to report

supplier nonconformances that remain contained within the PAH quality system.

Williams International further stated that the proposed requirement for reporting of

released nonconformances is already required by a PAH. FAA Advisory Circular (AC)

00-58, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program, further provides a means for a voluntary

disclosure of such releases.

Although the commenter did not provide a recommendation, the FAA disagrees

with the commenter’s premise. Before this final rule, a PAH’s supplier-reporting process

required each supplier, at any tier, to report to the PAH any product, article, or service

that did not conform to the PAH’s FAA-approved design. The FAA recognizes that this

requirement had the potential to impose significant burdens on a PAH and that, in many

cases (such as suppliers of standard parts), a supplier may not have known the ultimate

customer. This final rule amends § 21.137(c) to provide every PAH greater flexibility to

determine which nonconformances its suppliers should report, and to whom.

An individual commenter suggested that all tiers in the supply chain should report

to a PAH any nonconforming products, articles, or services that have been released from

or provided by that supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the PAH’s

requirements. More specifically, the commenter suggested that the FAA require each

supplier, in some instances, to report a nonconformance to each level up the supply chain,

and ultimately to the PAH and the PAH’s customer. Another individual recommended

13

the FAA keep the current regulation which requires suppliers to report quality escapes to

the PAH, and provided no further rationale.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters’ recommendations. In the past, a PAH’s

supplier-reporting system required every manufacturing supplier and affected

downstream suppliers to report to the PAH all products or articles which did not meet the

PAH’s approved design, even if those products or articles met the PAH’s actual

requirements. The FAA recognizes that this past requirement could have imposed a

significant burden on PAHs, and this final rule is intended to maintain safety while also

providing PAHs with the flexibility to determine which suppliers should report, and to

whom.

B. Accountable Manager

As the FAA proposed in the NPRM, this final rules amends §§ 21.135, 21.305,

and 21.605 to require a PAH to provide the FAA with a document identifying the

organization’s accountable manager. The accountable manager is responsible for, and has

authority over, all part 21 production activities. It is not the FAA’s intent that this

provision dictates who is responsible for PAH production operations. It is also not the

FAA’s intent that this provision imposes personal liability for production operations on

the accountable manager. The FAA is simply requiring each PAH to identify for the FAA

the individual or individuals within the PAH’s organization who the PAH considers

responsible for all production operations.

Boeing, MARPA, and Timken Aerospace recommended that an accountable

manager have the ability to identify and delegate functions to alternate points of contact.

These commenters noted that the person responsible for accountability may be a

company president or chief executive who cannot reasonably be available at all times.

14

Allowing delegation increases the FAA’s access to the PAH and provides redundancy in

the event of personnel turnover, in accordance with the intent of this final rule.

The FAA agrees with the commenters with respect to delegation, but determines

that no change to the proposed rule language is necessary. To clarify, the accountable

manager may delegate functions and identify alternate points of contact. These actions

should be noted in the PAH’s organization document. Additional guidance may be found

in FAA AC 21-43, Issuance of Production Approvals Under Subparts G, K, & O.

Boeing and an individual commenter requested that we revise the rule to require

two accountable managers—one for production activities and one for design activities.

These commenters claimed that two such accountable managers would better reflect the

various responsibilities of PAH personnel, including those responsible for coordinating

with FAA manufacturing inspection district offices (MIDOs) and aircraft certification

offices (ACOs).

The FAA disagrees with the commenters’ recommendation. The commenters are

describing design-related activities and responsibilities. Because the public was not

provided an opportunity to comment on an FAA requirement for an accountable manager

for design activities, the FAA considers the recommendation to be outside the scope of

this rulemaking. To clarify, the accountable manager described in this rule is required

only to have responsibility for production operations, not design activities.

Garmin International and Williams International stated that there is no need for an

accountable manager, and recommended instead a requirement that the PAH identify an

FAA point of contact. In addition, Garmin stated that a better means to improve the

FAA’s access would be to require a PAH to clearly indicate how its organization will

15

communicate. Williams recommended that if the FAA has difficulty communicating with

a particular PAH, that PAH should be required to clarify its own existing procedures.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters’ recommendations. An accountable

manager is not simply a point of contact. When issuing an approval or performing

certificate management, the FAA must know who from the PAH has the authority to

speak for the PAH and ensure compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.

Requiring a PAH to identify such an individual, one who is knowledgeable of and

accountable for maintaining the PAH’s FAA production approval, will improve

communication between the PAH and the FAA offices responsible for certificate

management of their production approval. A simple point of contact would not create the

same benefits.

Universal Avionics Systems Corporation (UASC), Textron, and an individual

commenter suggested identifying the accountable manager as the “Quality Manager.”

Textron stated that the rule could be misinterpreted as describing the PAH official in

charge of production operations, instead of the person who runs the quality system.

UASC and the individual commenter both observed that the FAA already requires

accountable managers for repair stations. The individual commenter further stated that

organizational differences between a typical PAH and a typical repair station make

identifying a general manager as an accountable manager less appropriate for a PAH than

for a repair station. Finally, UASC recommended incorporating the definition of “directly

in charge” from part 145 (Repair Stations) into part 21, to better explain the role of

“accountable manager.” UASC stated that it believes the Accountable Manager is

intended to be a quality person whom may not have responsibility for and authority over

production operations.

16

The FAA disagrees with the commenters’ recommendations. Although the FAA

requires the establishment of a quality system as a prerequisite to obtaining a production

approval, nowhere do we require a PAH to create an organizational position responsible

solely for the PAH’s quality system. Moreover, under this rule, the accountable manager

must be at a sufficient level within the organization to have responsibility over all

production operations, not just the quality system. For example, the accountable manager

should have responsibility for, among other things, formally applying to add a new

product or article to the PAH’s production approval; formally requesting FAA approval

for a change in location; amending the PAH’s organization document and submitting that

document to the FAA; ensuring support for design approval holders, as required by §

21.137(m); and formally submitting changes to the PAH’s approved quality system.

We also disagree with the commenters’ comparisons of part 21 and part 145

accountable managers. A PAH’s accountable manager has different duties and

responsibilities from the accountable manager of a repair station. Furthermore, the

“directly in charge” definition from part 145 does not apply to a PAH’s accountable

manager. We are not requiring a PAH accountable manager to be “directly in charge” of

the work performed by the production organization.

C. Authorized Release Documents

This final rule creates § 21.137(o), which permits a PAH to issue authorized

release documents for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles manufactured by that

PAH, and for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles rebuilt or altered in

accordance with § 43.3(j), provided the PAH establishes and adheres to certain quality

assurance procedures as part of its quality system. This final rule marks a slight change

from what the FAA initially proposed: in response to comments, we explicitly restrict

17

each PAH to issuing authorized release documents for products and articles manufactured

by the PAH itself.

Boeing recommended that the FAA consider requiring PAH personnel selected to

issue authorized release documents to receive FAA training equivalent to what is

currently required for designees. The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. Under

this final rule, a PAH that chooses to issue authorized release documents must establish a

training process for individuals the PAH selects to issue those documents. The PAH may

choose to send its personnel to FAA designee training (if available), establish its own in-

house training, or meet the requirement in some other manner. The rule establishes

minimum requirements and permits the PAH to establish FAA-approved procedures to

meet those requirements.

ASA stated that the rule does not give a PAH authority to issue FAA Form 8130-

3 because the term “authorized release document” is not defined. The commenter also

suggested changing the definition of airworthiness approval to add Airworthiness

approval means a document issued by the FAA, or a person authorized by the FAA.

The FAA disagrees with ASA’s recommendations. As stated in § 21.1(b)(1), an

airworthiness approval is a document that must be issued by the FAA. By this final rule,

however, the FAA will now permit an authorized PAH to issue authorized release

documents, using an FAA Form 8130-3, for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles,

and for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles when rebuilt or altered in

accordance with § 43.3(j). PAHs that intend to issue these documents must detail the

appropriate procedures in their quality manual. To be clear, FAA regulations and policy

distinguish between a document issued by the FAA (an airworthiness approval) and one

issued by the PAH (an authorized release document). In addition, the latest version of

18

FAA AC 21-43, released concurrently with this final rule, clearly states that a PAH

should use FAA Form 8130-3 when issuing an authorized release document.

ASA recommended extending the privilege of issuing an authorized release

document beyond PAHs, to include distributors accredited in accordance with FAA AC

00-56, Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program. The commenter suggested

that not doing so would create a significant competitive disadvantage for certain

American businesses. More specifically, the commenter argued that failing to allow non-

manufacturing distributors to issue authorized release documents would put those

distributors at a competitive disadvantage.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The FAA cannot extend this

privilege to non-manufacturer distributors because they are not recognized PAHs and,

therefore, lack FAA-approved quality systems. Quality systems are necessary to ensure

that products and articles conform to their approved design and are in a condition for safe

operation. The intent of this provision is to maintain the high level of safety achieved

under the prior rules, while allowing FAA-approved PAHs to engage in a practice that is

permitted by other authorities, such as the European Union and Canada, for their PAHs.

One individual commenter suggested that the FAA limit a PAH’s authority so that

the PAH could only issue authorized release documents for new or used aircraft engines,

propellers, and articles that the PAH itself manufactured under part 21.

The FAA agrees with the commenter’s proposal. Where a PAH was not involved

in manufacturing a product or article, the PAH may not have the ability to make the

appropriate conformity determination. Accordingly, this final rule limits a PAH’s

authority to issue authorized release documents to only those products and articles that

particular PAH has manufactured.

19

Two individual commenters stated that allowing a PAH to issue Form 8130-3 as

an authorized release document will reduce or be detrimental to aviation safety. One of

these commenters pointed out that, prior to this final rule, FAA designees assigned to

complete Form 8130-3 would occasionally turn back parts and articles due to issues

discovered during the FAA conformity inspections. For that reason, the commenters

claimed that eliminating designees’ continued, objective inspections would reduce safety.

Both commenters suggested keeping the current system.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters’ characterization of how FAA Form

8130-3 has been used previously, as well as their recommendations. With respect to

products and articles produced under a production approval, issuance of an FAA Form

8130-3 indicates that that the product or article conforms to its type design and is in a

condition for safe operation, unless otherwise specified. Even prior to this rulemaking,

FAA Form 8130-3 did not (and does not now) indicate that a particular product or article

has been inspected by the FAA or its designee.

Additionally, allowing a PAH, as opposed to an FAA employee or designee, to

issue FAA Form 8130-3 will not cause a decrease in safety. Currently, Designated

Manufacturing Inspection Representatives (DMIRs) or Organization Designation

Authorization (ODA) unit members issue the vast majority of FAA Form 8130-3s. These

designees are employed by the PAH and authorized by the FAA, and the FAA requires

them to possess at least certain minimum qualifications and training, such as those

described in FAA Orders 8100.8, 8000.95 and 8100.15. Similarly, under this final rule,

any PAH seeking authority to issue FAA Form 8130-3 must first get FAA approval. As

described in FAA AC 21-43, the FAA will not approve a PAH to issue FAA Form 8130-

3 unless the PAH demonstrates that its authorized personnel possess the same

20

qualifications and receive training equivalent to what is required by FAA Orders 8100.8,

8000.95 and 8100.15 for FAA designees.

Timken Aerospace suggested that allowing PAHs to issue authorized release

documents would add complexity to the existing process and increase the FAA’s

workload. The commenter recommended instead developing a system to assist PAHs in

obtaining additional DMIRs.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The FAA anticipates that

permitting PAHs to issue authorized release documents will reduce the workload of both

the FAA and PAHs. Our intent is to recognize a practice permitted by other authorities by

giving FAA-approved PAHs the same flexibility available to their European and

Canadian counterparts, who already issue authorized release documents. For PAHs with

an approved system for issuing authorized release documents, the FAA will no longer

authorize DMIRs or ODA unit members to issue airworthiness approvals.

Textron Aviation recommended that the FAA remove the regulatory language in

our 2014 NPRM proposing to allow the use of authorized release documents for work

performed under § 43.3(j). The commenter stated that this type of rebuilding work, and

related use of FAA Form 8130-3, is already performed by PAH manufacturers.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The commenter is correct that FAA

Order 8130.21 allows certain entities to use FAA Form 8130-3 when returning to service

rebuilt or altered engines, propellers, or articles in accordance with § 43.3(j). However,

the FAA’s final rule codifies our authorization of that practice and extends the same

privilege to PAHs producing new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles.

Textron Aviation also claimed that FAA Order 8130.21 requires authorized

persons to document inspection activity on an FAA Form 8100-1 when required by the

21

managing office, and recommended revising either § 21.137 or FAA Order 8130.21 to

indicate that a PAH is not required to use FAA Form 8100-1 when issuing authorized

release documents.

The FAA disagrees with both the commenter’s claim and recommendation.

Neither our prior rules, nor this final rule, requires a PAH to comply with the internal

guidance in FAA Order 8130.21. More specifically, § 21.137(o) does not require any

PAH to use FAA Form 8100-1 when issuing an FAA Form 8130-3. Furthermore, FAA

Order 8130.21 does not require the use of FAA Form 8100-1, but an FAA managing

office may determine that a conformity inspection report is necessary to substantiate an

FAA-issued FAA Form 8130-3.

One individual commenter stated that allowing a PAH to develop its own

procedures for signing authorized release documents will reduce or eliminate the

standardization that exists among designees. The commenter recommended that requiring

PAH personnel to take FAA training would facilitate greater standardization.

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. When a PAH signs an authorized

release document, the PAH is not signing that document on behalf of the FAA

Administrator. The FAA requires any PAH that chooses to issue authorized release

documents to establish minimum procedures, including training the employees

responsible for issuing those documents. These procedures will be reviewed and, if

acceptable, approved by the FAA, which will be conducive to standardization.

Ultimately, however, the current proposal gives each PAH the flexibility to choose to

send its personnel to FAA designee training (if available), establish their own in-house

training, or meet the requirement in some other manner.

D. Definitions

22

This final rule revises one definition and adds two new definitions to § 21.1. The

definition of “airworthiness approval,” in § 21.1(b)(1), is expanded to account for the

issuance of an airworthiness approval in instances where an aircraft, aircraft engine,

propeller, or article does not conform to its approved design or may not be in a condition

for safe operation at the time the airworthiness approval is generated and that

nonconformity or condition is specified on the airworthiness approval document. In

response to comments, we revised the definition proposed in our NPRM to account for

the fact that an airworthiness approval may in some cases be issued for products or

articles that are not in a condition for safe operation, such as when those products or

articles are packed for shipment.

As proposed, § 21.1(b)(5) defines an “interface component” as a functional

interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an aircraft engine and a propeller, or

an aircraft and a propeller. Furthermore, an interface component is designated by the

holder of the type certificate or the supplemental type certificate who controls the

approved design data for that article. This definition is necessary because this final rule

also promulgates § 21.147(c), which permits a PAH to apply to the FAA to amend its

production certificate to allow the PAH to manufacture and install interface components.

No change was made to the definition in this final rule from the NPRM.

Finally, as proposed, § 21.1(b)(10) defines a “supplier” as any person at any tier

in the supply chain who provides a product, article, or service that is used or consumed in

the design or manufacture of, or installed on, a product or article. This definition is

necessary to clarify existing FAA requirements. No change was made to the definition in

this final rule from the NPRM.

23

Timken Aerospace and one individual commenter recommended we revise our

proposed airworthiness approval definition by moving “unless otherwise specified” to be

the final clause. In other words, these commenters recommended changing the definition

to a document which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article

conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise

specified. The commenters noted, for example, that an engine is not shipped from a

factory in a complete and final condition, since it is prepped for shipping, and is therefore

not in a condition for safe operation.

The FAA agrees with the commenters’ recommendation. There are many

instances in which the FAA issues an airworthiness approval but, at the time of issuance,

the product or article neither fully conforms to its approved design, nor is it in a condition

for safe operation. For example, the FAA may issue an airworthiness approval for an

aircraft that has been disassembled for shipping, for an engine that has preservation fluids

installed prior to shipping, or for used aircraft engines and propellers that are not in a

condition for safe operation (see § 21.331, Issuance of export airworthiness approvals for

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles). We therefore revise the definition of

airworthiness approval to a document, issued by the FAA for an aircraft, aircraft engine,

propeller, or article, which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article

conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise

specified.

Also with respect to the airworthiness approval definition, Timken Aerospace

recommended we use the phrase “except for deviations noted” instead of “unless

otherwise specified,” to be more consistent with FAA Form 8130-9, Statement of

Conformity.

24

The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The concept of airworthiness is

generally composed of two factors: conformity with an approved design and being in a

condition for safe operation. In this context, the term “deviation” would indicate a

variation from an approved design or quality system, but would not necessarily convey

the fact that a product is not in a condition for safe operation. Accordingly, we determine

that the phrase “unless otherwise specified” more accurately reflects the intent of our

proposal.

Two individual commenters expressed concern that adding “unless otherwise

specified” to the definition of airworthiness approval would change a fundamental

premise of airworthiness approvals, that a product or article must conform to its design.

The commenters recommended that the definition not be changed.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters. The issuance of an airworthiness

approval, such as an export certificate of airworthiness, does not necessarily mean that a

product is airworthy. FAA regulations, such as § 21.331, allow FAA personnel and

designees to issue an airworthiness approval for a product or article that does not conform

to its approved design, as long as the nonconforming condition is stated on the approval

document and, in the case of export, the receiving authority agrees to accept the product

or article as described. This final rule, therefore, simply brings the definition of

Airworthiness Approval in line with current FAA practice and with part 21, subpart L.

Contrary to the commenters’ suggestion, we are not changing the fundamental concept of

airworthiness. Under current practices, an airworthiness approval is a means to show that

the product or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe

operation, unless otherwise specified.

25

One individual commenter stated that the definition of “supplier” is overbroad

because it includes distributors of commercial off the shelf parts or parts not originally

manufactured for aviation use. The same commenter also stated that the addition of the

term “at any tier” will cause inconsistent and disparate interpretation within the FAA and

undue burden to industry. The commenter did not provide any recommendations.

The FAA recognizes that by including the term “at any tier,” the proposed

definition of “supplier” applies to all suppliers throughout the supply chain. Contrary to

the commenter’s statement, the FAA believes including suppliers “at any tier” will

reduce inconsistencies by confirming that the FAA definition of “supplier” applies to all

suppliers, regardless of their position within the supply chain. Furthermore, the FAA does

not believe this definition will unduly burden industry. To the extent that a supplier has

only a tenuous connection to a PAH, perhaps because the supplier produces parts that are

not specifically designed for use in aviation, it may be appropriate for the PAH to account

for that attenuation when designing its supplier-reporting protocols. A PAH has always

been responsible for assuring that its products and articles conform and are in a condition

for safe operation. The inclusion of all suppliers within the regulatory definition of

supplier should therefore impose no additional burden on either the PAH or its suppliers.

The same individual commenter also stated that there is no guidance for the

suppliers of off-the-shelf parts, described above, who may not anticipate that their parts

will be used or installed on type certificated aircraft and approved.

The FAA agrees with the commenter’s observation that there is no guidance

provided specifically for distributors of parts not originally manufactured for aviation use

or installation on type certificated aircraft and approved under § 21.8(c). The FAA

26

provides guidance to PAHs, repair stations, and other FAA-regulated entities. The FAA

does not provide guidance for entities that fall outside the scope of FAA regulations.

E. Interface Components

As proposed, § 21.147(c) now permits a PAH to apply to the FAA for an

amendment to the PAH’s production limitation record (PLR), authorizing the PAH to

manufacture and install interface components. If granted, the FAA will amend the PAH’s

PLR to add the interface components (IC). ICs are defined in the new § 21.1(b)(5). The

FAA had previously granted exemptions to engine manufacturers, allowing them to

manufacture and install airframe components that interface between the engine and the

airframe, provided the engine manufacturer owned or licensed the ICs design and

installation data.

Boeing and General Electric supported the rule change. Boeing also suggested the

FAA allow engine manufacturers to install and certify airplane manufacturers’ ICs during

the engine type certification process.

The FAA disagrees with this recommendation as it is outside the scope of this

rulemaking. Allowing engine manufacturers to install and certify airplane manufacturers’

ICs during the engine TC process is a design issue, not a production issue. Our 2014

NPRM and this final rule focus on amendments to the production approval provisions in

subpart G.

Williams International recommended that our final rule distinguish between all

potential ICs versus those that are licensed to be both manufactured and installed by a

PAH. The commenter suggested that defining ICs more narrowly would enable the FAA

to include fewer items on the PAH’s PLR, and as a result would require fewer PLR

updates and impose less of a burden on the FAA.

27

The FAA agrees with the concerns raised byWilliams International, but we have

determined that the rule as drafted adequately addresses these concerns. Under

§§ 21.1(b)(5) and 21.147(c), a component must meet certain criteria before it is

considered an “interface component” eligible for the PAH’s PLR. For example,

§ 21.1(b)(5) requires, among other things, that an IC be designated as such by the TC or

STC holder. The rule requires only those ICs the PAH intends to produce be listed on the

PLR and not all possible ICs, so the PLR should not be an exhaustive list or a burden on

the FAA.

F. Miscellaneous Issues

HEICO requested that the FAA define authorized release documents, to establish

who is issuing the document. The FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The FAA

does not believe it is necessary to provide a definition in the text of the rule. The FAA

provides additional guidance on authorized release documents in the revised AC 21.43,

Appendix B, which is applicable to any PAH.

One individual commenter stated that the title of the NPRM did not reflect recent

changes from parts to articles in our 2009 final rule, Production and Airworthiness

Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Amendments, 74 FR 53384 (Oct. 16, 2009).

The commenter recommended changing the title of part 21 to “Certification Procedures

for Products, Articles, and Parts.” The FAA partially agrees with the recommendation

and this final rule changes the title of part 21 to “Certification Procedures for Products

and Articles.”

HEICO requested that we revise FAA Form 8130-3 attached as Appendix A,

Figure A-1 to FAA Order 8130.21 to explicitly indicate who, including a PAH, is

allowed to issue the document. The FAA disagrees with HEICO’s recommendation to

28

revise the form. Instead, we have revised FAA Order 8130.21 and ACs 21-43 and 21-44

to reflect the rule change allowing a properly authorized PAH to issue an authorized

release document. In the ACs we also provide guidance to on how to complete FAA

Form 8130-3.

Textron Aviation recommended that the FAA remove the requirement for the

issuance of export airworthiness approvals for articles, believing that this change would

better align FAA regulations with those of foreign authorities. The recommendation is

outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA notes that the requirements for the

issuance of export airworthiness approvals for articles are contained in subpart L.

Although the FAA proposed allowing PAHs to issue authorized release documents in

§ 21.137, the proposal did not change the conditions specified in subpart L.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First,

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt

a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended

regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-

354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. § 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic

impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L.

96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits

agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign

commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires

agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis

of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4),

29

as codified in 2 U.S.C. § 1532, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the

costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate

likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with

base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the

economic impacts of this final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and

procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost

impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this

order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a

determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination

follows.

As summarized in the table below, the provisions of this final rule (1) are minimal

cost, (2) will impose no additional costs because the provisions will clarify only, or are

current practice, or (3) are voluntary and therefore inherently cost-beneficial. Our

determination has not changed from that made in the NPRM regulatory evaluation. The

FAA received no comments to the docket on the NPRM regulatory evaluation. More

detailed explanations follow the table.

Provision Costs/Benefits

Require Identification of Accountable Manager

Minimal cost—Requires identification of an existing

manager, who is responsible for and has authority over a Production Approval Holder (PAH)’s operations, as a PAH’s primary contact with the FAA.

Allow PC Holders to Manufacture and Install Interface Components

Codifying the practice, previously allowed by exemption, will reduce regulatory compliance costs.

30

1. Require Identification of an Accountable Manager

Under this provision, the FAA will require each applicant for, or holder of, a

Production Certificate (PC), Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), or Technical Standard

Order (TSO) authorization to identify an accountable manager, who is responsible for,

and has authority over, a PAH’s operations, as a PAH’s primary contact with the FAA.

This provision is not intended to require the PAH to create a new position within its

organization and will not mandate that an individual in a specific position be identified as

the accountable manager. Consequently, the costs, if any, associated with this

requirement are minimal.

2. Allow Production Certificate Holders to Manufacture and Install Interface

Components

PC holders previously could not install interface components (ICs) on their type-

certificated products without an exemption. Previous regulations governing the

production limitation record and the amendment of PCs restricted the PC holder to the

manufacture of products only (aircraft, aircraft engines, or propellers) and did not

Modify Supplier Control

Requirements

No additional cost—Clarifies existing requirement that PAHs are responsible for conformity throughout their

supply chains and gives PAHs flexibility in establishing a supplier-reporting process for nonconforming releases.

Allow PAHs to Issue

Authorized Release Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers and

Articles

Voluntary, so expected benefits will exceed expected costs.

Exclude Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers from

Fireproof Marking Requirements

The FAA found the exemption provides an equivalent level of safety. Codifying the practice, previously allowed by

exemption, will reduce regulatory compliance costs.

31

authorize installation.3 The FAA has granted exemptions to engine manufacturers,

allowing them to manufacture and install airframe components that interface between the

engine and the airframe provided they own or are licensed to use the IC type design and

installation data. In granting these exemptions, the FAA found that allowing engine

manufacturers to produce and install ICs improved safety and efficiency by eliminating

disassembly, reassembly and retesting, as well as related scoring of fatigue sensitive

parts; damage to critical parts; and air/fuel/oil leaks.4 This provision will codify the

practice, previously allowed by exemption, of allowing PC holders to manufacture and

install ICs, and will apply to any articles designated by the TC holder that interface

between products. Therefore, this provision applies to the interface between propeller and

aircraft engine and between propeller and aircraft, as well as between aircraft engine and

aircraft.

Codifying the previous practice of allowing PC holders to manufacture and install

ICs implies no change in safety benefits. Codifying the practice, however, will reduce

regulatory costs since paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and

granting of exemptions will be eliminated.

3. Modification of Supply Control

With this provision, the FAA intends to clarify existing requirements that the

PAH is responsible for (1) conformity throughout the supply chain and (2) establishing a

3 Before 2010, §§ 21.142 (production limitation record) and 21.147 (amendment of production certificates) were

codified at §§ 21.151 and 21.153, respectively.

4 The production and installation of ICs by engine manufacturers also increase efficiency by allowing delivery of

quick-change replacement engines to end users such as air carriers and charter operators. Some piece parts (or kits),

such as the engine buildup unit (EBU), rather than being installed by the PC holder, may be shipped separately to an

aircraft manufacturer for the purpose of just-in-time manufacturing operations, or to an airline that may want kits on

hand for routine maintenance operations or to replace hardware damaged during operations.

32

supplier reporting process for nonconforming releases. As there was no definition of

supplier in the previous regulations, the final rule defines supplier as a person that

provides a product, article, or service at any tier in the supply chain that is used or

consumed in the design or manufacture of, or installed on, a product or article.

The final rule changes the language to § 21.137(c) as shown in the following

table:

Previous Rule Language Final Rule Language

Supply Control—Procedures that (1) Ensure that each supplier- furnished product or article conforms to its approved

design; and

(2) Require each supplier to report to the production approval holder if a product or article has been released from that supplier

and subsequently found not to conform to the applicable design data.

Supply Control—Procedures that (1) Ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service conforms to the

product approval holder’s requirements; and

(2) Establish a supplier reporting process for products, articles or services that have been released from the supplier and subsequently

found not to conform to the production approval holder’s requirements.

As provision (1) clarifies the FAA’s intent and current practice and provision (2) gives

PAHs greater flexibility, there will be no additional cost resulting from these provisions.

4. Allow Production Approval Holders to Issue Authorized Release

Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and Articles

Previously, only the FAA was allowed to document that an aircraft engine,

propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in condition for safe operation.

The FAA provides documentation with an airworthiness approval, using FAA Form

8130-3, “Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag.” This provision

allows, but does not require, qualified PAHs to issue authorized release documents, using

FAA Form 8130-3, for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles for which the PAH has a

production approval. We refer to the issuance of Form 8130-3 by a PAH as an

33

“authorized release document” because, as defined by 14 CFR § 21.1(b)(1), only the

FAA is allowed to issue an airworthiness approval. PAHs choosing not to issue these

authorized release documents may continue to obtain approvals from the FAA.

Although such airworthiness documentation is required only when requested by a

foreign civil aviation authority, it has become increasingly valued in the aviation

industry. Several U.S. manufacturers have requested the privilege to issue such

documentation, which is already enjoyed by their European and Canadian counterparts.

As it is voluntary, this provision is inherently cost beneficial.5

5. Marking of Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers

As noted in the preamble above, the FAA granted an exemption to Sensenich

Wood Propeller Company from the regulations requiring that a propeller, propeller blade,

or propeller hub be marked using an approved fireproof method. In granting the

exemption, the FAA found that stamping the hub of the propeller with the identification

markers will achieve an equivalent level of safety to the rule. The FAA maintains that

finding in this final rule and, in any case, codifying the practice, previously allowed by

exemption, implies no change in safety benefits.6 Codifying the practice, however, will

reduce regulatory costs since the costs of paperwork requirements involved in periodic

application for and granting of the exemptions will be eliminated.

The FAA made this minimal cost determination for the proposed rule. As no

comments were received, the FAA concludes the expected cost is minimal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

5 For aircraft, an export airworthiness approval will continue to be issued only by the FAA, using Form 8130-4,

“Export Certificate of Airworthiness.”

6 Variable-pitch wooden propellers do not require exception from the fireproof marking requirement since they have

metal hubs.

34

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes as a

principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the

objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions

subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to

assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range

of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency

determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as

described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA

provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is

not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for

this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The provisions of this final rule (1) are minimal cost, (2) would impose no

additional costs because the provisions would clarify only, or are current practice, or (3)

are voluntary. We received no comments regarding our determination that there was no

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in the NPRM.

35

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this

final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing

standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign

commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is

not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so

long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety,

and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The

statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that

they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that

the rule’s provision allowing PAHs to issue authorized release documents for purposes of

export would be in accordance with the Trade Agreements Act as this provision uses

European standards as the basis for United States regulation. The remaining provisions

have a minimal domestic impact only and therefore no effect on international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)

requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of

$100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a

36

"significant regulatory action." The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of

$155 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate;

therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. § 3507(d)) requires that the

FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed

on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information

collection associated with this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil

Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The

FAA reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and

identified no differences with these regulations.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,

promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,

safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or

prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA analyzed this

action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and

determined that this action has no significant effect on international regulatory

cooperation. To the extent that this final rule may conflict with the implementing

protocols of any FAA bilateral aviation safety agreements, the FAA will amend those

protocols in coordination with our international partners.

G. Environmental Analysis

37

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from

preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the

National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The

FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion

identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have

a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal

Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

(May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action”

under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the

supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the

Internet by —

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

http://www.regulations.gov/

38

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

3. Access the Government Printing Office’s Web page at

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice,

amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and

following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is

able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA’s

dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,

if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996

requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about

compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with

questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person

listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning

of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

http://www.regulations.gov/

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/

39

14 CFR Part 21

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

14 CFR Part 45

Aircraft, Exports, Signs and symbols

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and

44701(a)(5), the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND

ARTICLES

1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

2. The heading for part 21 is revised to read as set forth above.

3. Amend § 21.1 by revising paragraph (b)(1), redesignating paragraphs (b)(5)

through (b)(8) as (b)(6) through (b)(9), and adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(10) to

read as follows:

§ 21.1 Applicability and definitions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Airworthiness approval means a document, issued by the FAA for an aircraft,

aircraft engine, propeller, or article, which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine,

40

propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe

operation, unless otherwise specified;

* * * * *

(5) Interface component means an article that serves as a functional interface

between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an aircraft engine and a propeller, or an

aircraft and a propeller. An interface component is designated by the holder of the type

certificate or the supplemental type certificate who controls the approved design data for

that article;

* * * * *

(10) Supplier means a person at any tier in the supply chain who provides a

product, article, or service that is used or consumed in the design or manufacture of, or

installed on, a product or article.

4. Revise § 21.135 to read as follows:

§ 21.135 Organization.

(a) Each applicant for or holder of a production certificate must provide the FAA

with a document—

(1) Describing how its organization will ensure compliance with the provisions of

this subpart;

(2) Describing assigned responsibilities, delegated authorities, and the functional

relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other organizational

components; and

(3) Identifying an accountable manager.

(b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this section must be

responsible within the applicant’s or production approval holder’s organization for, and

41

have authority over, all production operations conducted under this part. The accountable

manager must confirm that the procedures described in the quality manual required by

§ 21.138 are in place and that the production approval holder satisfies the requirements of

the applicable regulations of subchapter C, Aircraft. The accountable manager must serve

as the primary contact with the FAA.

5. Amend § 21.137 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and adding paragraph

(o) to read as follows:

§ 21.137 Quality system.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service conforms to the

production approval holder’s requirements; and

(2) Establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services that

have been released from or provided by the supplier and subsequently found not to

conform to the production approval holder’s requirements.

* * * * *

(o) Issuing authorized release documents. Procedures for issuing authorized

release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles if the production approval

holder intends to issue those documents. These procedures must provide for the selection,

appointment, training, management, and removal of individuals authorized by the

production approval holder to issue authorized release documents. Authorized release

documents may be issued for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles manufactured

by the production approval holder; and for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles

when rebuilt, or altered, in accordance with § 43.3(j) of this chapter. When a production

42

approval holder issues an authorized release document for the purpose of export, the

production approval holder must comply with the procedures applicable to the export of

new and used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles specified in § 21.331 and the

responsibilities of exporters specified in § 21.335.


§ 21.142 Production limitation record.

The FAA issues a production limitation record as part of a production certificate.

The record lists the type certificate number and model of every product that the

production certificate holder is authorized to manufacture, and identifies every interface

component that the production certificate holder is authorized to manufacture and install

under this part.


§ 21.147 Amendment of production certificates.

(a) A holder of a production certificate must apply for an amendment to a

production certificate in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA.

(b) An applicant for an amendment to a production certificate to add a type

certificate or model, or both, must comply with §§ 21.137, 21.138, and 21.150.

(c) An applicant may apply to amend its production limitation record to allow the

manufacture and installation of an interface component, provided—

(1) The applicant owns or has a license to use the design and installation data for

the interface component and makes that data available to the FAA upon request;

(2) The applicant manufactures the interface component;

(3) The applicant’s product conforms to its approved type design and the

interface component conforms to its approved type design;

43

(4) The assembled product with the installed interface component is in a condition

for safe operation; and

(5) The applicant complies with any other conditions and limitations the FAA

considers necessary.



(a) Each applicant for or holder of a PMA must provide the FAA with a

document—


this subpart;



components; and











44

(a) Each applicant for or holder of a TSO authorization must provide the FAA

with a document—


this subpart;



components; and









PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING

10. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44101-44105, 44107-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725, 45302-45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.

11. Revise § 45.11(c) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 45.11 Marking of products.

* * * * *

(c) Propellers and propeller blades and hubs. Each person who produces a

propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under a type certificate or production

45

certificate must mark each product or part. Except for a fixed-pitch wooden propeller,

the marking must be accomplished using an approved fireproof method. The marking

must—

* * * * *

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in

Washington, DC, on September 25, 2015.

Michael P. Huerta, Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2015-24950 Filed: 9/30/2015 08:45 am; Publication Date: 10/1/2015]

Date post:	07-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times